Chapter Six (Núñez 2017) shows that egalitarian shared sovereignty is a fair way of dealing with sovereignty conflicts and that it is unreasonable to reject it as a way of solving them. That is because the fairness of the outcomes of the original position was secured by the conditions under which the choice was made. It is crucial time to evaluate if the general principles of the egalitarian shared sovereignty can be extended to workable institutions that realise these principles. That is the aim of Chapter Seven (Núñez 2017), to work out what sorts of institutions and arrangements could, and would best, realise the egalitarian shared sovereignty.
Two clarifications have to be made prior the application of the principles reviewed in Chapter Six. First, in order to apply these principles three actual sovereignty conflicts are used in Chapter Seven—namely, Kashmir, Falkland/Malvinas Islands and Gibraltar. There are many reasons to proceed in this way, in particular because it is actually possible to see how these principles work in real states of affairs rather than in an only theoretical environment. However, as the selected conflicts have all the elements essential to the model which is the object of this monograph, the conclusions will be fully applicable to similar disputes.
Second, the principles reviewed in Chapter Six have to be applied in a sovereignty conflict; more specifically, they have to be applied to a populated third territory and all that it involves. However, what does exactly the third territory involve? In order to answer this question, there are some points that must be discussed beforehand: first, to define the constitutive elements of the third territory; and second, to select which of those elements will be analysed through the proposed principle. The reason to proceed this way is mainly pragmatic. To do an exhaustive analysis of every component of the third territory would be out of the scope of a monograph of this nature. However, to demonstrate how the selected principles work is essential in order to prove the usefulness of this project.
[…]
Although population, territory and government can be seen as essential elements in order to establish a societal political organisation—sovereign or not—they presuppose others that give flesh to them: currency, market, defence, language, religion, etc. What are the elements or sub-elements to which the agreed principles are going to be applied? To answer this question, different criteria can be followed. Some of these elements are necessary in order for the third territory to exist, some others sufficient and most of them only desirable. Some of them can be divided; some cannot. From this account it can be maintained that the elements that constitute the third territory can be characterised and classified from different angles. However, there is a common feature to all of them and to sovereignty conflicts in general: controversy—i.e. the fact that every involved agent wants a larger share, even an exclusive one, over elements or sub-elements considered valuable. Even if some of these elements may be necessary, but not controversial—i.e. if the parties are not in dispute about what should be done about them—no negotiation is necessary. However, some others, if they are only desirable, may be matter of controversy. It is to these that the principles reached will be applied.
Therein, in answer to the question “have you incorporated a gender analysis into your thinking? If not why not?” The issue of gender is incorporated indirectly when Chapter Seven deals with population (Kashmir) and government and law (Gibraltar). Indeed, the model I propose in Núñez 2017 and its methodology can be applied to gender issues within a sovereignty conflict context. However, the model I propose in Núñez 2017 and its methodology would need to be applied in particular to a given case scenario and the issue of gender to have a more detailed outcome.
